This is the response I got from the OP:
it's the language that's the issue here, not the content. "Men are violent" is a much different statement than "Men are statistically more violent than women." One causes a knee jerk reaction that creates more misogyny, while the other doesn't. But bloggers and intellectuals get much more page views when they use inflammatory language, thanks to the economics of the internet.
Trying to think of how to respond. Anyone have any suggestions of blog posts I could point? I think I'm going to sleep on my response, and I'll be driving all day tomorrow, so any help in the meantime would be appreciated.
Well, that went well.
This guy (not the OP):
Painting any group of people with the same brush because of the behavior of some who happen to be able to be identified within that group is complete prejudice, no matter one's level of majority or priviledge.
Immediately responded with:
^ Bullshit. Not all the time. "Not all men..." can and should be used when "Men" is being used as a generalization to lazily identify all by the actions of a few, and that garbage is all over social media.
I shouldn't have even bothered - this stuff bothers me too much. I don't know if I have the energy for this fight.
ETA: And now that I look more closely... he has done exactly what I'm talking about, providing the perfect illustration of the issue with "Not all the time" when I specifically said that "not all men" is often used in this way. Ha.